Repugnancy, Presidential Assent and the Limits of State Legislative Power under Article 254
Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of UP Tenancy Law
The Allahabad High Court has struck down Sections 8, 9, 10, 38 and 42 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, holding them ultra vires to the extent of their inconsistency with existing Parliamentary legislation. The Court found that the provisions were repugnant to Central laws and lacked the requisite Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
Constitutional Issue
The case primarily concerned the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254. Under Article 254(1), where a State law conflicts with a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent List subject, the Parliamentary law ordinarily prevails.
Article 254(2), however, permits a State law to prevail within that State where it has been reserved for Presidential consideration and receives Presidential assent.
The Court found that the relevant provisions of the 2021 tenancy law could not override inconsistent Central legislation without satisfying this constitutional requirement.
Key Provisions Affected
• Sections 8, 9 & 10: Concerned payment, revision and determination of rent and were found inconsistent with the framework under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• Section 38: Restricted civil-court jurisdiction and vested matters in the Rent Authority, creating conflict with the applicable Parliamentary framework.
• Section 42: Sought to give the 2021 Act overriding effect, but a State statute cannot independently override Parliamentary legislation contrary to Article 254.
Wider Significance
The judgment reinforces that State legislative power is subject to constitutional limitations. The Supreme Court’s decision in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431, remains a key authority on determining whether a genuine and substantial conflict exists between Central and State laws.
The Court also addressed the consequences for the earlier U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, indicating that the previous framework would revive to the extent necessary to avoid a legal vacuum.
Key Takeaway
The judgment is significant beyond tenancy law. It reinforces the constitutional balance between Parliamentary supremacy, State legislative autonomy and federalism, while emphasising that legislation dealing with Concurrent List subjects must comply with the constitutional framework governing repugnancy and Presidential assent.